9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belief of the assessee (donor institution) at the time of making contributions should be respected and it cannot be faulted for the fraudulent acts, if any, committed by the donee institution. Despite this , the assessee had come forward to offer the said claim of weighted deduction by withdrawing the same during the course of assessment proceedings and had paid tax thereon. This proves the bonafide intent of the assessee, to purchase peace from the department and to avoid vexatious litigation in this regard. In our considered opinion, this intention of the assessee deserves to be accepted in toto. Hence this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. We find that this issue on the levy of penalty on the very same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that the assessee had filed its return of income for the Asst year 2015-16 on 29.9.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 3,72,87,290/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 70 lacs u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act at the rate of 175% of actual contribution made in the sum of ₹ 40 lacs to School of Human Genetics and Population Health (SHGPH) . There was a survey u/s 133A of the Act on 27.1.2015 at the registered/administrative office of SHGPH and it was found that SHGPH through a network of brokers was engaged in the practice of issuing bogus receipts for donation for commission. This was alleged to have been done by SHGPH in connivance with donors, brokers and accommodation entry providers by indulgin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition was sought to be made ultimately based on the evidences gathered in the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act carried out in the premises of SHGPH ( donee institution) and statements recorded from their office bearers. No where in the said statements, the office bearers had even whispered the name of the assessee or payments given back to assessee in cash in lieu of contributions made by assessee to SHGPH. In any case, the Explanation to section 35(1)(ii) of the Act clearly supports the case of the assessee by categorically providing that the claim of deduction in the hands of the donor (i.e the assessee herein) cannot be disturbed under any circumstances even if the recognition of the donee institution has been withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
